Recently, I wrote a column for
Knight Ridder Tribune raising important questions about the terrorist
attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. A reader wrote to me suggesting I give
answers regarding what happened leading up to that tragic day.

And with the second anniversary
of fresh in our minds, it seems timely that someone should come up
with possible answers, so here are a few.

Years before Sept. 11, our government
knew of Project Bojinka, a terrorist plan which included hijacking
airliners and crashing them into the World Trade Center, Pentagon
and other buildings. Then on Aug. 6, 2001, the CIA briefed President
Bush concerning al-Qaida possibly hijacking airplanes.

The White House is still unwilling
to release the details of that briefing and my guess is the details
might reveal an indication that al-Qaida might attack inside the United
States.

Why is this important? It's because
the administration has consistently said it knew before Sept. 11 that
something "big" and "soon" would occur, but thought the attack would
be overseas. Congress, the press and media all seem unwilling to find
out why some top Pentagon officials on Sept. 10, 2001, suddenly canceled
their travel plans for the next morning apparently because of security
concerns.

And they also seem uninterested
in finding out specifically who called San Francisco Mayor Willie
Brown late at night on Sept. 10, 2001, (he was scheduled to fly to
New York City the next morning), warning him and all Americans to
watch their air travel because of possible terrorist attacks.

These people were going to travel
within the United States on Sept. 11, so might the FAA or some other
agency have sent an alert that at least indicated the possibility
of an attack in this country? We know the FAA on Sept. 3, 2001, issued
an emergency ruling to airlines not to fly controversial author Salman
Rushdie unless they had implemented strict and costly security measures,
because he could be the target of an attack.

Why is it important whether the
administration knew an attack using hijacked airliners could occur
here? It's because immediately after Sept. 11 they all said "no one
could have imagined" such an attack. But how could they say this when
between Oct. 24 and 26, 2000, military planners held an exercise to
prepare for "incidents including a passenger plane crashing into the
Pentagon"?

If the public learned the possibility
of such an attack was known to the administration, the people would
have demanded to know why such a possibility was not made known to
us all in advance. That foreknowledge by the public probably would
have at least saved most of the lives lost in the second WTC tower,
because it would have been evacuated immediately after the first plane
hit the first tower.

The public also probably would
have demanded to know where the preventive contingency planning was.
This could have included something as simple as a military helicopter
on standby alert near New York, because terrorists had already tried
to blow up the WTC in 1993.

My guess is that shortly before
Sept. 11, information via intelligence intercepts or some other means
was obtained indicating the possibility of an imminent attack in the
United States and some people were alerted on Sept. 10.

Why should anyone care about this,
two years after the event? It's because we all need to know if we
can completely trust our government leaders. We need to know if they
have developed plans to thwart terrorists if tomorrow the latter would
try to crash a Lear jet packed with explosives into a building, or
use a helicopter from which to fire shoulder-launched rockets into
crowds of people, or derail passenger trains, or contaminate food,
or disrupt our supply of electricity, etc.

Our very lives are at stake.

It was not necessary for the administration
to know before Sept. 11 exactly what the terrorists would do and when.

If any in the government knew before
Sept. 11 simply that a "big" attack could happen "soon" inside the
U.S. and failed to warn us and take simple preventative measures,
they should be held accountable.

Dennis Laurence Cuddy, historian and political
analyst, received a Ph.D. from the University of North Carolina at Chapel
Hill (major in American History, minor in political science). Dr. Cuddy
has taught at the university level, has been a political and economic
risk analyst for an international consulting firm, and has been a Senior
Associate with the U.S. Department of Education.

Cuddy has also testified before members of Congress
on behalf of the U.S. Department of Justice. Dr. Cuddy has authored or
edited seventeen books and booklets, and has written hundreds of articles
appearing in newspapers around the nation, including The Washington Post,
Los Angeles Times and USA Today. He has been a guest on numerous radio
talk shows in various parts of the country, such as ABC Radio in New York
City, and he has also been a guest on the national television programs
USA Today and CBS's Nightwatch.